Efficiency of Preg_replace

Executive Summary:

preg_replace() ran faster than string comparisons. Why? Shouldn't regular expressions be slower?

---

In a recent question about detecting any of an array of disallowed substrings within a given input, I suggested comparing the result of a preg_replace() call to the original input, since preg_replace() can take an array of patterns as input. Thus my method for this could be a single if whereas the other solutions required one (or many) loops.

I'm not interested in debating my answer, because really it is less readable/maintainable than the loops. My answer there still holds a -1, and I'll accept that for readability/ease of maintenance, but the biggest fault pointed out with my method was a lack of efficiency. That got me curious, and led me to do some testing. My results were a bit surprising to me: with all other factors held equal, preg_replace() was faster than any of the other methods.

Can you explain why this was the case?

My code for these tests can be found below, along with the results:

$input = "In a recent question about detecting any of an array of disallowed substrings within a given input, I suggested comparing the result of a `preg_replace()` call to the original input, since `preg_replace()` can take an array of patterns as input. Thus my method for this could be a single `if` whereas the other solutions required one (or many) loops. I'm not interested in debating my answer, because really it is less readable/maintainable than the loops. However, the biggest fault pointed out with my method was a lack of efficiency. That got me curious, and led me to do some testing. My results were a bit surprising to me: with all other factors held equal, `preg_replace()` was **faster** than any of the other methods. Can you explain why this was the case?";
$input2 = "Short sentence - no matches";
$input3 = "Word";
$input4 = "Short sentence - matches loop";

$start1 = microtime(true);
$rejectedStrs = array("loop", "efficiency", "explain");
$p_matches = 0;
for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++) {
    if (str_check($rejectedStrs, $input)) $p_matches++;
    if (str_check($rejectedStrs, $input2)) $p_matches++;
    if (str_check($rejectedStrs, $input3)) $p_matches++;
    if (str_check($rejectedStrs, $input4)) $p_matches++;
}

$start2 = microtime(true);
$rejectedStrs = array("loop", "efficiency", "explain");
$l_mat开发者_StackOverflow中文版ches = 0;
for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++) {
    if (loop_check($rejectedStrs, $input)) $l_matches++;
    if (loop_check($rejectedStrs, $input2)) $l_matches++;
    if (loop_check($rejectedStrs, $input3)) $l_matches++;
    if (loop_check($rejectedStrs, $input4)) $l_matches++;
}

$start3 = microtime(true);
$rejectedStrs = array("/loop/", "/efficiency/", "/explain/");
$s_matches = 0;
for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++) {
    if (preg_check($rejectedStrs, $input)) $s_matches++;
    if (preg_check($rejectedStrs, $input2)) $s_matches++;
    if (preg_check($rejectedStrs, $input3)) $s_matches++;
    if (preg_check($rejectedStrs, $input4)) $s_matches++;
}

$end = microtime(true);
echo $p_matches." ".$l_matches." ".$s_matches."\n";
echo "str_match: ".$start1." ".$start2."= ".($start2-$start1)."\nloop_match: ".$start2." ".$start3."=".($start3-$start2)."\npreg_match: ".$start3." ".$end."=".($end-$start3);

function preg_check($rejectedStrs, $input) {
    if($input == preg_replace($rejectedStrs, "", $input)) 
        return true;
    return false;
}

function loop_check($badwords, $string) {

    foreach (str_word_count($string, 1) as $word) {
        foreach ($badwords as $bw) {
            if (stripos($word, $bw) === 0) {
                return false;
            }
        }
    }
    return true;
}

function str_check($badwords, $str) {
    foreach ($badwords as $word) {
        if (stripos(" $str ", " $word ") !== false) {
            return false;
        }
    }
    return true;
}

Results

20000 20000 20000

str_match: 1282270516.6934 1282270518.5881= 1.894730091095

loop_match: 1282270518.5881 1282270523.0943=4.5061857700348

preg_match: 1282270523.0943 1282270523.6191=0.52475500106812

---

Let's first look at preg_check and loop_check. Both of them will have to traverse the entire string, and they will have to check each of the individual words in each traversal. So their behavior will at least be O(n*m), where n is the length of the string and m the number of bad words. You can test this by running the algorithm with increasing values of n and m and plotting the 3D graphs (however, you may, or may not, have to run it with very high values of n and m to see this behavior).

loop_check is more (asymptoticly) efficient here. The reason is that the number of words a string has is not proportional to their length -- I seem to recall it typically follows a logarithmic function. It probably uses a hash table to store the words it finds through the way, which is done in average constant time (if we ignore that we may have to rebuild the hash table from time to time to accommodate more elements).

Therefore loop_check will have an asymptotic behavior that follows something like n + m * log(n), which is better than n*m.

Now, this refers to the asymptotic behavior of the algorithms, i.e., when m and n grow very (and it may require "very very") large. For small values of m and n the constants play a big part. In particular, execution of PHP opcodes and PHP function calls are more costly than the same task implemented in C, just one function call away. This doesn't make the regex algorithm faster, it just makes it faster for small values of m and n.

---

Can you explain why this was the case?

Easy. preg_match is implemented in C. The other solutions are implemented in PHP. Now, that doesn't mean a regex will always be faster than the equivalent PHP, but most of the time, it probably will be.

I recently had a similar situation, where I had a function (a CamelCase converter) that was being called 10s of thousands of times, and taking a fair amount of CPU (I profiled). I tried every PHP reimplementation I could dream up. The preg_replace was always faster. In the end, I left the function as it was, and memoized it, which did the trick.

In many cases, the fewer PHP statements executed, the better. If you can replace a loop with a single call to a function that's implemented in C under the hood, that may be your best bet.

really it is less readable/maintainable than the loops

I disagree. One-liners are as simple as it gets. Although I'd probably go with something more like

function preg_check($rejectedStrs, $input) {
    return preg_match($rejectedStrs, "", $input);
}